Tough Task

EPA?must prove it acted responsibly

May 5, 2013

A West Virginia farmer who refused to let the Environmental Protection Agency win a game of “chicken” is, with help from a federal judge, doing an enormous service to others who fear the EPA will......

Comments

mountainterp

wouldnt need regs if people would do the right thing like not murder one another, drink/drive, abuse children, spray agent orange on vegatation,or pump radioactive waste in the air. Either we have a civil society or we perish. I vote republican because I hate the rule of law.

Dirtman

HR Puff: "Well I suppose if you only read the conservative brain washing dictionary that is a good definition. Liberal adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3..., etc.

DontTreadOnME

Yes by building a structure on your land, by fertilizing your lawn, by parking cars in your driveway and all the other things we humans do on our private property we are "polluting our land. So you should be responsible for the clean up of the rain water leaving your property, right?

DontTreadOnME

"favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

You mean like an individual being able to run a farm without government harrasment, or the right to keep an bear arms, or maybe the right to put non FDA inspected food in my body. ****. Guess they're not really liberals now but they're socialists, because these people aren't the liberals I remember from the 1960's

DontTreadOnME

1) protect something from harm or decay: to keep something, especially an important environmental or cultural resource, from harm, loss, change, or decay 2) use something sparingly: to use something sparingly so as not to exhaust supplies

DontTreadOnME

"This farmer has admitted to "waste-tainted runoff from her farm." Now should taxpayers pay for that or should the person causing the problem pay for it. Logical questions."

It's freaking rain water that they want her to "regulate" not water she uses to clean the hen houses or anything else, it's NATURAL RAIN WATER RUNOFF that falls from the sky lands on her farm and runs off, GET IT? I'd bet if they came out to your house and checked the water runoff it's polluted.

DontTreadOnME

"Maybe WV can follow the greay Bush state of Texas and deregulate all business. That way way we can have a fertilizer or chemical plant next to every school. Then cancer goes up and Big Pharma stock holders get richer sellng drugs that dont work"

Yea because conservatives love drinking dirty water and pouring oil down the sewer and want the land stripped free of all trees and think that polluted air is the best. My God liberals are a bunch or tards...

mountainterp

Maybe WV can follow the greay Bush state of Texas and deregulate all business. That way way we can have a fertilizer or chemical plant next to every school. Then cancer goes up and Big Pharma stock holders get richer sellng drugs that dont work. I vote Republican because I hate freedom unless its the freddom to pollute, to hate, and to rape.

DontTreadOnME

I guess the liberals forgot that the EPA WITHDREW their threat from Ms. Alt because they knew they had no legal standings, but I'm sure they will continue to blackmail other farmers into complying with illegal regulations.

DontTreadOnME

Maybe liberals should understand the case before they start making stupid comments. I can tell from the comments none have read both sides of the story, but they sure are opinionated...Well you know what they say about opinions...And yes most of them do stink....

Sandpiper

thedevilsadvocate

All Bailey decided was that the case was not rendered moot by the EPA's withdrawal. (Fededral court jurisdiction extends only to actual cases and controversies. Federal courts do not give advisory opinions or entertain moot issues). His order did not address the legal merits (or lack thereof) of either party's case and establishes only that, for now, the case will proceed for further development.